Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-03-01
SOME QUESTIONS.
A Correspondent Wants Light on
the Petition Business.

EDITOR DEMOCRAT: The District Court
here this morning suspended sentence IN
the Pearson homicide case during the
good behavior of the defendant, and
while che refrained from the use OF IN
toxicating liquor as beverage" This
action of the Court, as stated, was based
upon the Petition to the Court by divers
good citizens OF the Territory, and upon
communications to him from different
portions of the Territory, all asking the
suspension of sentence. In TACT, II mao
been brought to his knowledge that
doubts of the propriety OF the suspension
of such sentence had been lntlmated by
only single indiyidaal. Mr.. Hiles, the
Deputy District Attorney, having been
called upon by the Court, stated
in substance that, personally, ne
felt disposed to fdUOr the action sought
by the petitioners; yet as an attorney IN
the case he did not feel at liberty to do
so: vet he had no doubt that the suspen-
sion of sentence sought aC0s warranted by
authority! The attorney who presented
the petifion on behalf of defendant is I'M
derstood to have declared that "The law
was progressive" and that times had
changed E'since the days of Lord Jeffries J"
What the gentleman meant by this, was
left to conjecture.
The propriety OF citizens petitioning
the Court for the indefinite suspension OF
sentence, when the defendant has been
found guilty of felony, and all the pro-
ceedings admitted regular and legal, does
not seem to have been questioned.
Is it true, that citizen, OF right, may
petition court for the indefinite suspen-
sion of sentence in case like this?
II so. where may the authority be found ?
Is there any authority, outside OF this
| judicial district, for andefnatety suspend
ina sentence in cases OF felony? II so,
1Ukere IS that authority to be found! LIS
it not imperative upon the Court to rem
der Judgment within fixed limit? Is
not the authority of the Court to be ex-
ercised under delegated authority? and
| does not the law say he shall, at stated
time, render Judgment? And is the
| Court authorized to receive and consider
a petition on behalf OF one lawfully con-
victed of felony, after verdict, and before
Judgment, and thereby try the defendant
oUer aQain IN this er pGrte manner, ana
upon grounds entirely ertrinSic OF the record
and, by suspending sentence indefinitely
take from the Governor his perogative Of
pardon? Ii the position of Of petitioners
is correct, why was there not some
authority of lar or precedent shown tc
sustain It? In fact, is not this petition
business entirely unheard Of? And is
not every every person instrumental in
furthering such a petition subject to be
treated by the Court summarily, as o.
contempt? If it were an admitted right
SO to petition the Court is it not probable
some one would have made the discovery
before to-day, and now, having discov
cred that their cause may be so trieC
will not the Court be beseiged by al
polygamists and ''felons of all class, by
petition to try their causes orer on mora
qrounds9 And viii not the Court bt
COMPELLED to so try them? Is this judi
cial farce ended? Or rather is not this
the opening act? Where are we drift
ing? Do we live under government O.
laws framed under delegated authority
If so, where are the guardians of the
rights of the citizens?
Provo, Feb. %, 1887.